Thoughts on race...

We've had an interesting series on our daytime TV (national TV network) over the last few weeks. It's a US-made (I think) program called "Race" - the sort of thing you might see on Discovery Channel.

The main thrust of the program is that despite many efforts over many years, they have not been able to find a biological determinant of "race". Earlier episodes dealt with the fascinating topic of mitochondrial DNA and how it can be used to show that as humanity emerged from Africa, there was an evolutionary 'bottleneck' which means that ALL people in the world are much more closely related to each other than we realise. They took a mixed-race class of students and got them to sample their own DNA and analyse it for comparison. Before they got the results each student was asked to identify another classmate who they thought they would be the closest DNA match for. naturally they did what I would have done - chose the classmate whose family history most closely matched their own. So the student of Japanese background chose another Japanese student, for example. A Nordic student chose another student with Scandinavian background; African-Americans chose others who looked similar as well as had similar histories.
The results were fascinating - how people looked, or where they had come from, really had little bearing on who in the world they were most closely related to, according to their mitochondrial DNA (which we inherit only from our mothers - only the egg cell contains mitochondria, which are duplicated in each cell; sperm cells only have a packet of nuclear DNA and some energy to get them to delivery point).

A later episode (the final one, I think) dealt with the social development of racism in the US, especially in housing in post-war USA. It was handled very sympathetically but also very realistically. I had never realised before, how much difficulty and confusion could be caused by a few opportunistic entrepreneurs concerned more about making an income than what is morally right. So many people regardless of their skin colour getting caught up in confusion and opportunism. A lot of people who probably never ever thought about racial differences suddenly finding themselves having to choose a side of the fence.
As I said, it was dealing specifically with the US situation but I can look back at the Australian experience and see some similarities but a lot more differences. While hopefully we have learnt from a lot of mistakes made elsewhere in the world we are more than capable of inventing a lot of our own.

But one thing was made clear to me - my total lack of understanding previously of the US experience in race relations (not just black/white, but the whole question) helped me understand the point of the program - that the biggest differences between us all are cultural. I do love mingling with you guys online, but I keep coming across cultural differences which I have to struggle to understand, despite Australia's increasing exposure to US culture. But the people you grow up with, the language they use, every gesture and waggle of the head has meaning that is beyond me unless I sit down and study it. You would find similar oddities in me, and my family. Genetically I might be more closely related to Bill Cosby, George Takei or George W Bush - I just don't know. But culturally, they are more closely related to each other than I ever will be with them.

It's been a fascinating topic, one I want to keep digging on. When we look back at how far we have come in our understanding of race, it makes it easier to feel confident that the continuing journey has got to be heading to a better future for us all.

I haven't seen it but it sounds interesting. It also sounds a bit flawed. I'll explain.
I had my DNA done through Nat'l Geographic. It's $100 and lots of fun. You submit a saliva sample and they send you back a map that charts your ancestors migratory patterns approx. 50,000 yrs ago. They also give you photos (links online) of other women who have submitted DNA samples that match yours. The matching women came from Poland, Russian, and Saudi Arabia (via Africa). It stops just past the Bering Straight (the ice melted thousands of yrs ago, blocking further passage until recent history) so my ancestry on that side is German and Danish in the late 1800s. (I am missing a huge amt of info between 50,000 AD and 1850, so this DNA sample created as many questions as it answered.

Likewise, I had my Dad submit a saliva sample (a greedy Christmas present on my part... I wanted to know my ancestry and he insisted he knew it was all Celtic back to the Stone Age. He's got Alzheimer's so I thought he was just going on what his grandparents told him). Well, he was right. His is the most common ancestry for the Celtic "race" and most widely spread DNA during the Ice Age, LOL!

We have no Asian or African Ancestry that is visably discernable, that is, in regard to phenotypes.
Nat'l Geo posits that we all started in Africa because of climate and commonality of DNA found in a particular tribe there (the ones whose language uses a clicking sound... now I can't recall the name).

In re: to culture, yes, culture is a huge factor in our differences. Look at how women are treated in the Middle East-- yet their history includes some of the most brilliant people (men) from all walks of life--mathematicians, cartographers, architects, calligraphers, horse breeders.

We got some flack from friends and family when they knew we wanted to adopt a mixed race child. We had some very unhappy times and some hurt feelings, to say the least. To us, it didn't matter, but they told us that we were deliberately seeking out a difficult life for ourselves because of race and culture.

Little did we all know that it would end up being ADHD and Asperger's, and race would be inconsequential!
I think difficult child will have problems when he's old enough to date, and that will bother me as much as it bothers him... but I will cross that bridge when I come to it.

He has noticed that so many of the poor in our area are black, or what we would consider poor, which means an apt. or small house with-window a/c rather than central a/c, a rusty car, and Kmart clothes rather than something from NYC, among other things. (I know some Guyanese who have emigrated to NYC, and they think that their cockroach infested section 8 housing is wonderful compared to what they left in Guyana!). I explain to my son that it all has to do with-education and staying in school. Some kids think it's not cool to be smart, and they will make fun of you. (In our public school system, that attitude is rampant through much of the black population and a bit of the white population, but none of the Asian population, true to stereotype.)

We have a local group to discuss these issues, called People-to-People. They meet once a month but I don't see much progress being made. (I went to 2 mtngs yrs ago.) The people who show up are the ones you could talk to anyway, and the ones on the street who so desperately need education and stripping of stereotypes will never show up.

I'm not sure the issues you were referring to in re: to entrepreneurial exploitation. Could you explain?

Oh, I forgot to mention that some diseases are typical to certain races. There are racial characteristics that MUST be considered--sometimes we try too hard to be politically correct and miss some very important medical info. Locally (in the American South), blacks tend to have a far higher incidence of hypertension, and that seems true for many W. Africans. However, diabetes is also extremely high in our local black population but not in Africa... which points to diet and exercise factors.
Tay Sachs is found in those with-Mediterranean ancestry, particularly Jews; lactose intolerance is typically found in those with-modern African and Asian ancestry; alcohol intolerance (incl. allergies and alcoholism) is found in Native Americans and Asians, particularly Japanese; sickle cell is most commonly, if not exclusively, found in those of W. African ancestry, etc.
Breast cancer is very high in American women of ALL races, but lower in Asia, where they don't wear bras as often, and eat very little beef (aka hormones)... ironically, their food has a very high soy content, which is an estrogen mimicker.
Anyway, you get the idea.

Perhaps we should create new terminology, because "race" seems too all-encompassing and simplistic.

Interesting feedback, Terry. I wish I'd seen the whole series, I only got to see about three episodes. The entrepreneurial exploitation I mentioned - that was my term, it was what I understood from 'shonky' real estate agents and speculators encouraging people in white communities to sell (to them, at reduced rates for a quick sale) on the FEAR (promoted by the profiteers) that values in the area would fall with influx of blacks. Then the same profiteers would on-sell, at profit, and make a motza. The people selling were responding to pressure and fear which, unfortunately, became realised the more sales happened. The same thing happens in the stock market - shares trading alone can influence shares prices, which can influence more trading, etc. A panic sale of shares will cause a drastic drop in market price which then affects negatively confidence in that company.
it was more detailed that that and because it was so new to me, I didn't follow it all. What stuck in my mind was the stuff that WAS familiar to me - I was about fifteen, with my parents visiting my married brother who lived in Dubbo, a country town on the edge of outback NSW. A well-dressed Aboriginal family were walking along the street - mostly kids in play clothes. My sister in law stuck her nose in the air a bit and commented, "I hope they've not moved in near us, the property values will go down."
I asked why, and was told, "People don't like living next to THEM. They're dirty, they don't look after their families, it's just not right to let them move here."
I pointed out, "They look clean, they're neat, the kids have their hair combed nicely, I can't see the problem. I went to school with Aboriginal kids, they were great."
"Look - they've got bare feet!" sister in law replied.
"So have I," I told her. "I prefer walking in bare feet."
The conversation was brought to a fast close by my mother, trying to be diplomatic. "You're too young to understand now, you will when you're grown up." (I hated that answer - I STILL don't understand, but I DO understand that all it takes is some people thinking that way and land values ARE affected.)

Terry, you mentioned diseased connected with some races. The program did touch on this, at least with sickle-cell anemia. It's much more than just a disease of African black people - sickle cell is selected for in any area where malaria has been significant. They showed a case of sickle-cell anemia in a Greek child and pointed out that it's not uncommon in other countries where malaria was found in recent times.
But I do agree - there are some diseased, including Tay-Sachs (there are others, can't think of them right now, brain is shutting down) where incidence is far more common if you have ancestors coming from some highly specific area. Other diseases - they are linked to cultural differences. Sometimes those cultural differences over a very long time have led to a greater susceptibility to diseases from which that group of people have been isolated. Example NOT given in the program is the very high incidence of Type II diabetes in people of Australian Aboriginal descent. As a race, they had a lifestyle which involved grazing on collected roots, berries etc and meat feasts. Then along come Europeans with white flour, sugar and alcohol (plus diseases that the Aboriginals didn't have immunity for) and they died like flies. Even now, diabetes is horribly common even where they make a huge effort to live a healthy lifestyle and diet. Meanwhile our white kids can eat junk all they want and have a lower incidence. Life isn't fair when you inherit genes which haven't adapted over centuries to a lousy diet.

Lactose intolerance - I used to believe that it was cultural, mostly. We're mammals, we're only supposed to drink milk in infancy. But when you continue to drink milk as you grow up to adulthood, you don't lose the enzymes you have in your body, to digest milk. In Western society we continue to drink milk. But if we stop drinking milk for years (or eating any form of dairy food), we often find lactose intolerance if we try to go back to dairy. husband works with a lot of Asian students, who often have lactose intolerance. However in almost every case those with lactose intolerance never had milk or dairy beyond infancy. He has not seen lactose intolerance in any Asian who was born here and grew up with a mixed Asian/Western diet. Those Maccas thick shakes, taken regularly throughout childhood and adolescence, seem to provide some protection!
Similarly, I've known people who got such a ghastly gastic bug that they lost their enzyme protection and were lactose intolerant from that time on.

Your DNA tests sound interesting. The 50,000 years thing is, I think, referring to that evolutionary bottleneck when (so they claim in this program) there was a very small number of people leaving Africa, and it is from that small group that we are ALL descended. Yes, in the time since there has been adaptive radiation around the world, followed by some level of natural selection - much of it skin colour in different regions to cope with that fine balance between needing to get enough Vitamin D, but still not be killed by skin cancer, plus a few other local variations to deal with other strictly regional oddities such as diseases - but what it is that makes us who we are, each of us; our intellect, our ability to cope with change, our success as individuals, is very similar from one person to the next. It is beyond race, beyond "I am tall and therefore smart; he is short and therefore dumb." We do have other stereotypes, such as the races considered to be astute and shrewd in business (Jews, Chinese, Indian, for example) but these can be traced back to culture.

I'd really like to learn more about the Human Genome Project and DNA. I had always hoped that the Project would help answer questions as to where and how various groups arrived where they did in the world, but it sounds like we were all too closely related 50,000 years ago to be able to get much information that way; it would be a 'noisy' DNA signal.

But while we wait for researchers to continue poring through the piles of information, we can still enjoy the search and the snippets of information along the way. I LOVE anthropology.

One last thought - many years ago at uni I had to study a 'make-weight' subject called "People and Culture". We got thoroughly indoctrinated to avoid EVER using the word "race". It was simply wrong, we were told. The concept of "race" is wrong, we refer to "culture". There is no "race", we had to accept. "Race" is a derogatory, degrading term which serves only to segregate and devalue a group of people. It was implied that use of the wrong word could even lead to a fail grade in the course. it was, of course, political correctness gone overboard.
It took me years to be able to say "race" to anyone, unless I was referring to a sporting event. There ARE times when the word "culture" simply won't suffice. For example, I am Australian-born, but I'm not Aboriginal in any way. What race am I? It is a legitimate question, the closest answer is "Anglo-Saxon, probably going back to the small, dark Welsh people". What culture am I? Australian.

For so many years scientists tried to quantify race, to find some way to clearly and specifically define it. They have failed to do so. In the attempts, a lot of harm has been done to a lot of people through misunderstandings and misinterpretation. Then the pendulum swung too far the other way, to the idea of a melting pot of full cultural interchange with the potential to lead to some sort of coffee-coloured unified blandness.

We now need to accept that we live in a world of amazing and wonderful variety. Cultural differences need to be valued and studied, but we are losing much of our variation as we intermingle and choose what we personally like out of the cultural smorgasbord available to us. We need to value our variety, but accept change and choice.

Hearthope, if you have bi-racial kids in Alabama with no problems, then we are well on the way to a society with more tolerance that we have demonstrated in the past.

DDD, I'm trying to avoid political discussions - we've just had our state election and we're already in the rundown to a Federal election at the end of the year (which is shaping up to be an interesting and dirty fight). Besides, it rally doesn't matter who you vote for because no matter who, you always end up with a ! [that censored word is "p o l i t i c i a n" - why, oh why?]

Hearthope, good for you!
We're doing much better now... but some of the stereotypes are hard to break.
I had a discussion yrs ago with-a cousin who was very against the Koreans moving in and "taking over." We really got into a big tiff. Then in the next breath, she berated the welfare blacks who mooched off the system.
I said, "Wait, if you don't like lazy people, it seems you'd LIKE the Koreans!"
"But they're taking our jobs!"
"Then work harder to get them back! If it's hard work you're talking about, this is a good thing. We whites need to get off our duffs and work that hard. It's called 'competition.'"
She said "Just wait until you've lived here long enough. You'll understand."
Well, I learned that the Koreans (who typically married American svcmen and then brought their families here) were very aggressive in biz. Big hairy deal.
I learned that there was a segment of the blk pop that was taking advantage of our welfare system. But so were some of the whites. The new gov. back then changed the state system so you couldn't have generational welfare... iow, you had to apply for jobs on a consistent basis, show you were interviewing, and get ANY kind of a job within a certain # of yrs of being on welfare. It really helped.
Anyone who is given something for nothing will eventually take advantage. In our area, it just happened to be racial.
by the way, that same person sells cosmetics, and she now has women of diff races as reps.
I laughed and told her that the color green (for money) superceded all racial colors!!!
It was a good moment for capitalism and still is.

it was what I understood from 'shonky' real estate agents and speculators encouraging people in white communities to sell (to them, at reduced rates for a quick sale) on the FEAR (promoted by the profiteers) that values in the area would fall with influx of blacks.

Oh! Yes, in America it happened a lot in the 60s when people moved to the suburbs. It was called "white flight."

A well-dressed Aboriginal family were walking along the street - mostly kids in play clothes. My sister in law stuck her nose in the air a bit and commented, "I hope they've not moved in near us, the property values will go down."
I asked why, and was told, "People don't like living next to THEM. They're dirty, they don't look after their families, it's just not right to let them move here."
I pointed out, "They look clean, they're neat, the kids have their hair combed nicely, I can't see the problem. I went to school with Aboriginal kids, they were great."
"Look - they've got bare feet!" sister in law replied.
"So have I," I told her. "I prefer walking in bare feet."

Good for you! That's exactly the kinds of conversations I have had and they must continue. I am all about educating people.
However, the People-to-People group wears me out. I'd rather do it in private, spontaneously, as you did with-your sister.

Terry, you mentioned diseased connected with some races. The program did touch on this, at least with sickle-cell anemia. It's much more than just a disease of African black people - sickle cell is selected for in any area where malaria has been significant. They showed a case of sickle-cell anemia in a Greek child

I vaguely recall that now... it makes sense.

white flour, sugar and alcohol

the bane of all our existence...

(plus diseases that the Aboriginals didn't have immunity for)

Like our Native American Indians who died when Europeans introduced syphilis and smallpox.

Lactose intolerance - I used to believe that it was cultural, mostly. We're mammals, we're only supposed to drink milk in infancy. But when you continue to drink milk as you grow up to adulthood, you don't lose the enzymes you have in your body, to digest milk. In Western society we continue to drink milk. But if we stop drinking milk for years (or eating any form of dairy food), we often find lactose intolerance if we try to go back to dairy.

Yes, my husband gave it up because it aggravated his asthma. When he went back to it, he had lost the enzyme.
difficult child was intolerant from birth.
The end result is the same.

I'd really like to learn more about the Human Genome Project and DNA. I had always hoped that the Project would help answer questions as to where and how various groups arrived where they did in the world, but it sounds like we were all too closely related 50,000 years ago to be able to get much information that way; it would be a 'noisy' DNA signal.

Yes, one of the flaws is that they can't get DNA samples from everyone, and some groups no longer exist. But it's a start. One of the reasons I did it was to contribute to the available gene pool (even though my genes are some of the most common). The more people who participate, the more accurate it will be. That is one of the flaws of private companies that offer tests for more recent ancestry... their gene pools are too limited. You could pay $1,000 to find out if someone is related to you and you might find out... or you might not. Nat'l Geo rec'd a huge grant, which allowed their scientists to travel to remote areas where people have not migrated or moved for thousands, if not millions of yrs. That really helps with-accuracy.

But while we wait for researchers to continue poring through the piles of information, we can still enjoy the search and the snippets of information along the way. I LOVE anthropology.

Absolutely. I agree!
One last thought - many years ago at uni I had to study a 'make-weight' subject called "People and Culture". We got thoroughly indoctrinated to avoid EVER using the word "race". It was simply wrong, we were told. The concept of "race" is wrong, we refer to "culture". There is no "race", we had to accept.

Wow.

it was, of course, political correctness gone overboard.

That's for sure.

For so many years scientists tried to quantify race, to find some way to clearly and specifically define it. They have failed to do so. In the attempts, a lot of harm has been done to a lot of people through misunderstandings and misinterpretation.

Yes. Sigh.

Then the pendulum swung too far the other way

Right.

, to the idea of a melting pot of full cultural interchange with the potential to lead to some sort of coffee-coloured unified blandness.

The feel-good Age of Aquarius.

We now need to accept that we live in a world of amazing and wonderful variety. Cultural differences need to be valued and studied, but we are losing much of our variation as we intermingle and choose what we personally like out of the cultural smorgasbord available to us. We need to value our variety, but accept change and choice.

Thanks. And, yes, I agree that politicians are all of one culture or race or creed or something because we all end up with
a bunch of censored! LOL

I find the posts really interesting as it so helps to define who
both of you are. Unlike you I am a senior citizen who grew up in
the South. My Mother also said "you'll understand when you are
older". Believe me I AM older and I still don't understand how
educated, caring, religious people thought it was aok to make
the blacks sit in the back of the bus, drink from separate water
fountains AND be out of the white section of town by dark.

My best friend and I decided to sit in the back of the bus to
show unity with "our" maids. It made sense at the time but it
caused the blacks alot of grief...and, of course, lead to some
unhappy moments at home. I always sought out the underdog as a
kid because I was bright, cute, funny etc. (back in the day..lol)
and by walking down the hall with a new kid or a poor kid or a
slightly disabled kid it sent a message to my peers to treat them
well. Subtle as it was, however, I always knew who would be welcome at my home and who wouldn't be.

Thanks for the link, Terry. I've bookmarked it, I'll take more time later on to look at it. I'm right between cooking dinner and organising family right now, I took a few minutes to check CD. I've offended a few people on another thread and I just wanted to check to see if I'd got any more critical PMs!

I'm putting it down to a classic example of extreme cultural difference between the US and Australia - while there is a lot I love about Australia I know the place is far from perfect and there are a lot of things you have in the US that we don't. But some things I suggested are actually what happens here, apparently successfully. The disbelief with which my comments were met (I'm not offended, only backing right out of that discussion because clearly I don't understand at all) showed me another area in which there is a HUGE cultural gulf; always a surprise to me, because Australians get criticised by our own for trying to be more like Americans. Clearly, we have a long way to go!

On the subject of acceptance of disability - easy child 2/difficult child 2 grew up looking after me. If I dropped my crutches she would pick them up for me, not even thinking. At school there was a boy with cerebral palsy. He sometimes chose to crawl if he'd left his crutches too far away. She would see it and go fetch his crutches without being asked. It was something she grew up being used to, she didn't think about it. She wasn't trying to be kind, just doing what she saw needed to be done as part of a group working together.

We do what we're used to. We accept what we understand. Everything else takes a little longer!

That's something else I'll have to add to my list of interesting things to study. Lethal recessive genes do occur but generally don't last for more than a few hundred years unless there is some other advantage connected (as in sickle-cell). Researchers are even using lethal recessives to wipe out populations of certain pest species, such as the Aussie blowfly. Not sure where that research has gone, I know they were working on it BIG time in the 80s.

It's not uncommon for small, isolated pockets of population (biologically speaking) to show some genetic oddities like this. But such diseases are only one or two genes, they are NOT even an observable fraction of the individual's genetic make-up. All we are seeing is the obvious manifestation of a very tiny proportion of the genetic makeup. The rest of our genes are more like everyone else's than perhaps we've ever realised before.

If I look at my family and consider the phenotypic variation that is obvious, the range is amazing. Eye colour ranges from brown, through all shades of hazel, to blue. Some are tall, some are short, many are medium. Hair colour ranges from dark brown, to red, to blonde. Some of us are prone to allergies, some are not. Some have fair skin, some have freckles, some of us are dark-skinned. There are other differences more closely related to only a single gene variation here or there, but we all seem very different, yet we are all members of the same family. All siblings with the same two parents.
When we have a larger family reunion, we can recognise certain family groups by a particular 'thing', such as the shape of the eyes. My great-uncle Fred had wolf-like eyes and all his descendants have the same. My grandmother had similar eyes but more open - we look a lot like Uncle Fred's branch, but not quite. Others had a narrower forehead, or a pointier chin. easy child 2/difficult child 2 looks a lot like one of Uncle Fred's sisters. She even has the same distinctive laugh, I haven't heard it from anyone else since that aunt. easy child 2/difficult child 2 never met that aunt, she died soon after husband & I married.

But on the street, if we bumped into each other as individuals, nobody would pick any of us as related. We zoom in on the feature that we see in common, but overall we are exhibiting huge variation. And yet, DNA would show the relationship to be close because we ARE, within our family.

When comparing differences between one group or another, or once rave and another, we sometimes zoom in on something like Tay-Sachs because it does seem fairly exclusive to one main group.
But it's not completely exclusive. Also, not every member of that group has the gene. There is a correlation between having Tay-Sachs and being Jewish, but it's not a 100% correlation simply because humanity is a spectrum. (and also, correlation doesn't mean it's causative, either - a mistake often made in the early days of the study of race, when they tried to explain certain physical features in skull shape as proof of and reason for the lower qualities and lack of intelligence of certain groups).